Whatever the method, I would personally enjoy seeing more discussion of the matter in the open.
Just having a vote doesn't really encourage any discussion and in the end it just comes down to whatever is most popular - more popular games will more likely be voted upwards and there's no need for great thought.
With discussion, everyone can understand the reason for a game's inclusion/exclusion, the whole process feels more inclusive and the results are likely to be more considered and thoughtful.
I would suggest having Bisqwit alone or some small panel able to vote. And the meta-voting or unknown-voter idea sounds exciting. Whatever the situation, discussion should be encouraged and publicly visible.
The 'hidden voting' - Bisqwit selecting, say, 7 people whose votes actually matter but not telling anyone who they are - would encourage everyone to discuss their thoughts, since they need to vote but also need to sway others' opinions - probability states that their vote doesn't actually count.
The meta-voting could easily end up as people just using their votes whenever they get them and never bothering to discuss anything.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Joined: 8/3/2008
Posts: 157
Location: The Land Down Under
Bisqwit wrote:
― A sampling of the special stars is randomly picked once every few minutes to be showcased on the front page.
― The general rule is, anything listed in this category – special stars – should be worth watching for most of the audience, new and old alike.
Personally i think it's a great idea as I'm relatively new to the site and haven't seen many of the better movies yet.
As for the voting, i agree that a small panel (or just Bisqwit) sounds like a good idea, you don't want some random member of the community just voting one of their own submissions in simply because its their's. Also i feel that entertainment and the 'wow factor' (a.k.a. NOWAIOMGWTF JUST HAPPENED??) should be the most important things to consider when working out whether a movie is worth the special stars or not.
I love glitchy TAS's :P
Btw, do we all agree that the stars should signify not-completely-obvious movie recommendations aimed at newcomers, and not anything different? Just to be sure we are all on the same page.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Btw, do we all agree that the stars should signify not-completely-obvious movie recommendations aimed at newcomers, and not anything different? Just to be sure we are all on the same page.
For my part, I have no idea. I'm watching this thread thinking, "why not just star movies where entertainment > 9.whatever?"
I thought that was the point. Or close enough, anyway.
Btw, do we all agree that the stars should signify not-completely-obvious movie recommendations aimed at newcomers, and not anything different? Just to be sure we are all on the same page.
I thought obvious recommendations are also to be included. When I first came, I wouldn't have looked for Mario 64 had it not been starred. And then I saw the 1-star run which astounded me - I'd never thought such things were possible, let alone the more recent efforts!
Though game X may be a popular game and you think people will look for it, I think it should still be starred, depending on run quality. Seems better to include an absolute gem that most will have already seen than to have a minority miss out on a highlight.
And from what Bisqwit says, these are meant to both be recommendations for newcomers and also a checklist of 'have you seen this?' for older folk.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I think the idea should be to give a set of videos that newcomers will find most appealing, and a detail that should be weighed carefully in that decision is to keep the list populated with more known games.
A few like Umihara Kawase (sp?) that are especially crazy is fine, but runs like Battle of Olympus, which are in my opinion entertaining enough to merit the honor should probably be left out because the game is relatively unknown.
People like seeing runs of games they have played before, and that needs to be considered when we look at what runs would best appeal to newcomers.
I thought obvious recommendations are also to be included. When I first came, I wouldn't have looked for Mario 64 had it not been starred. And then I saw the 1-star run which astounded me - I'd never thought such things were possible, let alone the more recent efforts!
Though game X may be a popular game and you think people will look for it, I think it should still be starred, depending on run quality. Seems better to include an absolute gem that most will have already seen than to have a minority miss out on a highlight.
And from what Bisqwit says, these are meant to both be recommendations for newcomers and also a checklist of 'have you seen this?' for older folk.
That makes sense, but only for games where tool-assistance is prominent. If we take games like SMB or SMB 3, where most tricks are the same as in the up-to-date unassisted runs of the same games, the factor of tool-assistance is considerably less prominent. If you take an uninitiated person and show them the current SDA efforts, they'll be surprised just the same, because they likely wouldn't immediately see the difference anyway. SMW, on the other hand, is different at least because the preferred methods of traveling there are visually different (hopping, 1/1 swimming, and so on), and spotting this aspect with a naked eye takes little to no effort. SM64 takes it so much further that the runs are not even close to each other. It's, as you said, surprising because the TAS does things not thought to be possible in this case.
Thus, I generally think it's a good idea to give the most prominent examples of TASing priority over the most prominent games that have been TASed. All while adhering to the guidelines mentioned by Bisqwit, obviously.
But of all things, the recommendation should not work as a double for the top entries of this list, or the whole idea won't make sense at all.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
That makes sense, but only for games where tool-assistance is prominent. If we take games like SMB or SMB 3, where most tricks are the same as in the up-to-date unassisted runs of the same games, the factor of tool-assistance is considerably less prominent. If you take an uninitiated person and show them the current SDA efforts, they'll be surprised just the same, because they likely wouldn't immediately see the difference anyway.
Hmm, defending my SMB TAS, I don't think either the flagpole glitch or the long wait in 8-2 can be ignored. Oh, I don't think the current SDA efforts are up-to-date either, as I've discussed with andrewg. :P
TODO: more
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
There are noticeable amounts of TASing in SMB, but the gains are slight; each thing that a viewer might recognize as "hunh, that's kinda weird" is gaining only a couple dozen frames at the very most. Compare that to the gains in Mario 64 where a level portal is bypassed, humanly impossible paths are used through many levels, and so on, and the difference that TASing makes is quite clear.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
There are noticeable amounts of TASing in SMB, but the gains are slight; each thing that a viewer might recognize as "hunh, that's kinda weird" is gaining only a couple dozen frames at the very most.
Yes. However, it's one of the few movies that can be considered "(nearly) perfect", which is TAS-unique.
Derakon wrote:
Compare that to the gains in Mario 64 where a level portal is bypassed, humanly impossible paths are used through many levels, and so on, and the difference that TASing makes is quite clear.
Mario 64 deserves a Star, but that doesn't prevent other runs from getting Stars.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Yes. However, it's one of the few movies that can be considered "(nearly) perfect", which is TAS-unique.
Wow, that's a chance you added (nearly) to your statement :P You would have gone in the category of "My run was perfect until some scores a better time"
:P
"My run was perfect until some scores a better time"
While many TASers and viewers appear to take that view point. In theory, a run isn't perfect until a bot brute forces every possibilty within the time frame of the current fastest run.
You can prove software correctness. It's such a pain to do that normally nobody bothers, but it's a requirement for some government programs. For example, the software that ran the Space Shuttle back in the day was proven to be correct.
Similarly, you could in theory prove the maximal speed of a TAS without having to brute-force every combination of inputs. Given that the latter would require 2^8^N repetitions (I think) to generate N frames of input for a controller with 8 buttons, I doubt we'll be brute-forcing entire movies anytime soon. :)
For comparison purposes, 3 frames of this would be
134078079299425970995740249982058461274793
658205923933777235614437217640300735469768
018742981669034276900318581864860508537538
82811946569946433649006084096
repetitions. That's 1.34 * 10^154!
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
In his first post at this topic, Comicalflop wrote:
Movies that can be improved shouldn't have star
I really disagree with this. Besides the fact that virtually every movie can be improved, it being improvable doesn't really change the movie. It is not possible to constantly remove stars if an improvement was found, or if someone is working on an improvement, and then later, when the improvement it made, the improved movie would have to 'fight' again for its star. A movie that is known to be improvable can still provide loads of entertainment, and can still be very optimally played (just might not have used the latest glitch)... it can still be starworthy in every way. A known to be improvable movie with a star maybe gets people motivated to actually do some TASing ;)
moozooh wrote:
2. A small (ideally 7-10) group of people.
I somehow like this option, since it would seem that this way some people who are interested in it will be able to create, and keep an up to date list. I do think that also in this option, these people should be very open to other peoples opinions. Such a group could either be assigned by Bisqwit, or by popular vote.
Truncated wrote:
Here is a funny (maybe?) idea: give stars to movies based on user votes. Which voters affect the star ranking is unknown to both themselves and other users. Bisqwit selects which voters contributes to the star ranking, but cannot elect himself.
A very funny idea indeed! Unfortunately, and while very interesting, there are a lot of reasons why I don't like it, and why I think it shouldn't be implemented. I don't think that stars should be determined by votes. A single good argument given why a certain run should have a star means more than a lot of random votes. I think stars should be determined on good reasons, and not by votes. A vote doesn't say very much. I would also be bothered by the fact that I would carefully watch a movie, and give my judgement on something, and I would never know if my opinion ever mattered... that sounds like a nightmare to me. Also, (and I don't mean this as a serious objection, since I do trust Bisqwit), technically Bisqwit could virtually decide which movies get stars, just by selecting the right people.
klmz wrote:
Yes. However, it's one of the few movies that can be considered "(nearly) perfect", which is TAS-unique.
I think the fact that one can somewhat say that SMB is (nearly) perfect is a good reason not to give it a star. If most of the game is like an autoscroller, and the end of the stages have horrible frame rules, if the game has no lag, and little to no luckmanipulation, then yeah, it might be closer to perfection than other runs... but imo therefore not necessarily more interesting. I would say this could be a reason not to give it a star.
Don't get me wrong. I love your TASes... but I think for instance your Little Samson TAS would be far better suited for a star than SMB1.
You can prove software correctness. It's such a pain to do that normally nobody bothers, but it's a requirement for some government programs. For example, the software that ran the Space Shuttle back in the day was proven to be correct.
Similarly, you could in theory prove the maximal speed of a TAS without having to brute-force every combination of inputs. Given that the latter would require 2^8^N repetitions (I think) to generate N frames of input for a controller with 8 buttons, I doubt we'll be brute-forcing entire movies anytime soon. :)
For comparison purposes, 3 frames of this would be
134078079299425970995740249982058461274793
658205923933777235614437217640300735469768
018742981669034276900318581864860508537538
82811946569946433649006084096
repetitions. That's 1.34 * 10^154!
Actually, it's (2^8)^3 not 2^(8^3)
one frame is 256 possibilities
two is 256 possibilities for frame one and 256 possibilities for frame two or 65536 total
three is 16777216
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
For ultimate, complete, undeniable proof, yes, although you could probably scale that back by a few digits if you removed useless checks (e.g., pushing select, pushing start):
Normally, you have to check every combination of buttons:
256 ^ 17909
However, if you remove three (as "up" is useless as well):
32 ^ 17909
You could also be selective with the usage of the "down" button (useless except when over a pipe, or when no direction is being held while big) too, which will further reduce the count. Add in auto-nothing for "black space" (transitions) and cutscenes, that reduces it still more.
Basically, for undeniable, concrete, without-a-doubt proof, you would need to test every possibility.
But if you're creative, you can chop down the number of tests by a very significant margin. (I can't really calculate the numbers offhand so I just left them as exponentials.)
In his first post at this topic, Comicalflop wrote:
Movies that can be improved shouldn't have star
I really disagree with this. [./quote]
I really agree with baxter. JXQ's 100% Super Metroid has been obsoleted (I believe), yet that is one of the most entertaining runs I have seen to date... and I have never played SM!
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
I really agree with baxter. JXQ's 100% Super Metroid has been obsoleted (I believe), yet that is one of the most entertaining runs I have seen to date... and I have never played SM!
I honestly believe that movie is still the best one on this site :D
In his first post at this topic, Comicalflop wrote:
Movies that can be improved shouldn't have star
I really disagree with this.
I really agree with baxter. JXQ's 100% Super Metroid has been obsoleted (I believe), yet that is one of the most entertaining runs I have seen to date... and I have never played SM!
Hmm, I said I it didn't matter if starred movies could be improved. I don't think I'm really in favor of giving stars to movies that actually have been improved (obsoleted).
For my part, I have no idea. I'm watching this thread thinking, "why not just star movies where entertainment > 9.whatever?"
I thought that was the point. Or close enough, anyway.
I think that the more the starred movies become just about a voting system, the more they'll resemble that list.
When I came along, having seen the starred movies, I assumed that they'd been selected by an individual (or very small number of people) and to my mind, that gives it more import than a bunch of movies voted into place without discussion.
I personally think that having much discussion and a tiny commitee would definitely help keep it more unique.
I think the starred movies could maybe show the best examples of each type of movie - each movie included for a particular reason and showcasing particular aspects or styles of TASs.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Yes. However, it's one of the few movies that can be considered "(nearly) perfect", which is TAS-unique.
I think the fact that one can somewhat say that SMB is (nearly) perfect is a good reason not to give it a star. If most of the game is like an autoscroller, and the end of the stages have horrible frame rules, if the game has no lag, and little to no luckmanipulation, then yeah, it might be closer to perfection than other runs... but imo therefore not necessarily more interesting. I would say this could be a reason not to give it a star.
I can see quite a number of people think that SMB is simply super zzz bros, as it is just a simple and pure platform game. Hmm, maybe I was just poisoned with SMB1 in my childhood.
As to luck manipulation, there's a major one: Bullet Bill for the trick in 8-2.
Baxter wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I love your TASes... but I think for instance your Little Samson TAS would be far better suited for a star than SMB1.
Wow, thanks!
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
The whole point of brute forcing SMB1 would be to see if some crazy ass manipulation happens or if the engine misfires in a favourable way, or even just a unexpected glitch which no one has yet found. The likelihood is that brute forcing would be combined with heuristics in order to drasticly reduce the amount of inputs tested. After all, isn't that what chess computers do, by limiting the number of realistic moves an opponent can make in order to make future moves easier to calculate. Personally, I think Karate Kid would be a better game to brute force than SMB1. Given that it's shorter and normally requires a lot of testing by feeble humans anyway.
So to prove if the current SMB1 run was perfect you'd need to test 12221910998141693190735399218027+E43105 possibilties.
No. If a certain combination of buttons makes the game to go to the exact same state it was with another different combination of buttons, you don't have to test from that point forwards again.
Also if a certain combination of buttons causes the movie to be longer than the shortest completion known so far, you don't have to test that path any further.
For ideas about these concepts, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-beta_pruning
A few comments regarding some of the points being brought up here.
I think JXQ's input animations during his Super Metroid 100% run would actually be confusing or misleading to newcomers. We all understand that it is all done through the emulator, but some people may just see it as pictures put over the encode. Newcomers aren't familiar with the emulator interface.
As for the Super Mario Bros run, I think we all understand and respect the amount of effort that has gone into optimizing that run, but numerous people have brought up that it's hard for a newcomer to see those things. The flagpole glitch is definitely impressive, but a newcomer may be watching the movie and say "Hm, that was weird, the flag didn't go down." This movie is pretty borderline when looking to show "obvious" tool-assistance to a new viewer.
A list of games I think definitely make great starring material from personal viewing (in no particular order):
*This list only contains material I am familiar with.
Mario 64 0 star
Mario 64 120 stars
Majora's Mask
SNES Zelda LttP
Rockman and Forte 100 CDs
NES Megaman __ (no preference)
NES Legend of Zelda
Super Metroid (in some form, not so much the xray glitch one.)
I think it is also worth considering Donkey Kong Country 2/3 EDIT: I guess I'm biased like you Super Mario Bros kids. =p
Regarding the point that some of these are waiting to be obsoleted, I think it would be fine from some of them to be omitted from the list until they are obsoleted.
Regarding lesser known material, I honestly don't know if viewers will be able to understand the tool assisted manipulation of the game if they aren't familiar with TASing to begin with.
So I guess I would say somewhat popular material is good, I would also say the run should show obvious tool-assistance throughout.
I honestly think somewhat popular material is better suited, but that's just me.
There is definitely more debate to continue on this matter.
